Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wednesday August 30, 2006 @02:27AM
from the another-12,500-bites-the-dust dept.

cultrhetor writes "The New York Times reports that the communist government in the Indian state of Kerala is trying to remove Microsoft from its public institutions, as part of a campaign against monopolistic corporations. From the article: 'schools and public offices across the state are being encouraged to install free software systems instead of purchasing Microsoft's Windows programs. "It is well-known that Microsoft wants to have a monopoly in the field of computer technology. Naturally, being a democratic and progressive government, we want to encourage the spread of free software," M. A. Baby, the state's education minister, said by telephone.' The government is not banning Microsoft, but it is actively encouraging all 12,500 public schools in the state to install Linux."

Yes, this is a dupe. Still, there was a bit of new and interesting information:

In a written statement, Microsoft's public sector head in India, Rohit Kumar, said the company had tried to keep its prices low to make them accessible to schools, selling one version of Windows for between $25 and $30 per computer.

This would be the 'crippled' version, I presume. Still, it does show how afraid Microsoft are of Linux adoption. Of course, they could do a great job of defending their monopoly by just giving aw

Because of the GPL, it isn't possible for a Linux company to develop the kind of control that Microsoft has.

Actually, it is. Due to the LGPL being used in most libraries, it is possible for a company to develop proprietary software on top of Linux. For example, if Microsoft had a Linux distribution, they could create MS Office for Linux, which only runs on Microsoft Linux.

I think the LGPL will eventually turn out to be a huge tactical mistake.

I think the LGPL will eventually turn out to be a huge tactical mistake.

Why would it be better if the LGPL libraries would have been GPL instead? The reason to be for the LGPL is that it should be unnecessary to have two libraries doing the same thing on the same system. If we would take as an example the GNU Libc, using the GPL instead of the LGPL would force users that want to run GPL-incompatible software to install a sepatare Libc that allows linking for such software. Thus, the LGPL was created for

I think you're being silly. The whole point is that the OS should be free, which includes my freedom to develop proprietary software if I see fit. It's your choice to buy or donwload my software or not. Making the C library GPL will simply restrict the freedom of people to develop for linux, which will no be beneficial to the platform at all.

No, it's no more your choice to develop unfree software if you wish than it is your choice to stab whoever you choose with your own knife.

All the fruits of all human endeavour belong to all of humanity. You may have written that software, but it does not belong to you: it belongs to everyone. As a human being, you have certain rights. Other people have exactly the same rights too. Your rights translate to other people's obligations, and other people's rights translate to your obligation. As a human

The question, as always when discussing copyleft, is whose freedom to conserve/constrain.The GPL conserves the freedom of the user of software at the (apparant and short-term) expense of the freedom of the software's author.The copyleft idea is therefore, in principle, to cull Stalin's freedom in favour of increasing the freedom of Soviet citizens:-)

Closed-source software is no more nor less than electronic subjugation; and subjugation is evil whatever form it takes. Therefore, it deserves to be banned.

On the other hand, it might not need to be banned: it's possible that a technological development could make it obsolete. Closed-source software survives only because the operation of taking some binary machine code and generating equivalent source code -- that is, source code which, when compiled, will produce a bitwise identical binary -- is curre

As long as you supply your own food, and you pay me for the extra energy used in cooking yours + mine as opposed to mine alone {which will be less than half the total, since some of it is going into the pan and the air in the kitchen}, then, yes.

If I light my unlit candle from the flame of your lit one, we now have two lit candles and your room does not get any darker when I take mine away than it was before. That is an example of sharing without diminution. On the other hand, if I cut a pie in half an

If I spend my time writing something, it is my option to sell it. How is that any different than you making a chair, and I demand you give it to me for free?

It's different because in the first case, you still have the software you wrote even after I had taken my copy of it; whereas in the second case, I no longer have the chair. If you want a better comparison, think in terms of you measuring my chair with your own instruments, and fabricating your own chair from identical materials sourced by you, with th

If Linux starts to take off, you'll see Microsoft themselves start a distribution. I actually find it amazing that they have stuck with Windows. If they used Linux, they would be able to forget about needing to maintain all of the low-level operating system stuff and could put more effort into locking people into their brand of Linux.

This is something that the Free Software community will need to start thinking about, soon. How do we prevent that from happening?

The same thing you do today: you suck it up. If you want you can start using another format which they cannot read. Or you can put your money where your mouth is and use the market to push your product against theirs. Funny how freedom takes on a whole new meaning when it's applied to people who disagree with you!

This must just a giant communist trap made by the NSA to find and locate all those damn pinko's. Makes sense. I bet they got a back door coded in the software to phone home about what you do with it. Damn you opensource. Now if only we could get the code to make sure it does what it says. But that will never happen.

The real piece of news is that it's a "communist state" that did it. Therefore it belongs in the "politics" section AND it's way better for good flamefests and revenue-generating ads ! Currently it's night in the U.S. (where people have been taught to loathe communism since the cold war), but wait for America waking up and you will see;)

In the original slashdot story I posted a link to an article on newsforge [newsforge.com] which gives better background context to this decision by the Kerala government. The article has some flaws i.e. "open source guru Richard Stallman", but still makes interesting reading.

I just hope they suggest a particular Linux distro and version to their schools, or they will end up with a dozen variants of Linux all needing different versions of downloaded apps, different config tools, and what not.

I will stop short at suggesting which distro they should choose (and might just avoid being modded troll).

Learning how to deal with computers is essential nowadays yet what most people learn is how to work with Windows. This is like learning how do drive a FIAT Pinto vs learning to drive a car. Granted in with cars the difference is minimal but still we get a driving license. Not a fiat pinto license.

I just seen to many windows kids loose it completly when they are put to work with a non-windows computer. Or even DOS. Or an older windows version. Or indeed any computer that is not a 100% copy of their home sys

Damn commies! damn slashdot for taking this long to give us some really commies to complain about!

Actually I guess this is gonig to be fun watching people's head spin.. open source good, microsoft bad, but hang on, is communist open source good or bad? Actually Kerala is governed through a parliamentary system of representative democracy [wikipedia.org], they chose their current political leaders, no totalitarian dictators here. They just prefer communist representatives... Sounds like it's not all a bed of roses but it's in pretty good shape for an Indian state by the accounts I've come across (and a damn nice place to visit as a tourist according to several of my friends).

Why is it that if it's a communist state doing something it's bad and when it's not it's good.
It's seems that the wording in the description highlights that it's a communist state that removes it, and not a democratic one. When the real point is that and Indian state is trying to remove it...

Why is it that if it's a communist state doing something it's bad and when it's not it's good.

Easy. At least easier than parsing your question.

If the question is "Why is it when a communist state does something it's bad when the exact same things, done by a non-communist state, is good?", at least.

The answer is it's not about communism, it's about power. When a state which is firmly in the control of its citizens does something which increases its freedom and independence, that freedom and independence acc

Yes, it's very important to make sure that we throw in the word "communist" because that puts the whole article in perspective. Just saying "the Indian state of Kerala" would have horribly skewered the story.

In fact, this decision has nothing to do with the specific government being communist or not, and I welcome this decision, although I have nothing to do with India whatsoever. But, as wonderful western objective journalism rules expect, how nice it is to insert that word in there so as to inflate a latent (or not) hostility right in the beginning towards whatever might come in the following text. Instead of just saying Kerala's state government decided to encourage this and that. These days, I've just become really sensitive to slight (or not so slight) political overtones.

You're absolutely right. And not only that - the article uses very inflamatory language, calling it 'attack on multinational corporations'. The title also puts the word monopoly in quotes, as if to suggest that there are those of the opinion that Microsoft is a monopoly (ignoring, of course the fact that they were convicted of being a monopoly in the US, fined in the EU, Korea, etc.). In short, it's worded in such a way that it looks like a grave injustice is being done to poor Microsoft.

...MAKE them come to their own conclusion? I mean, if you assign no money to buy software but FORBID under DRACONIAN measures use of pirated software and MANDATE that they must equip a number of computers, what else really they CAN do but download and install free software? Then they could boast around about their lawfull antipiracy policy instead of beeing accused of beeing anti-business.

It is a democrtically elected coalition government in Kerala, led by a Communist party. And communism has no bearing on the discussion.

"The Education Ministry has an annual budget of 40 million rupees, or $1.86 million, to promote computer technology among the one million students"

One US dollar is about 45 Indian rupees or thereabouts. So, 40 million rupees would be less than a million dollars.

"Financial, rather than ideological, reasons may be at the root of the state's decision to promote free software."

Again, not true. People in Kerala have been using computers since the mid '80s actually. The VSSC (Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre) in Trivandrum, the capital of Kerala has lots of Sun graphic workstations supplied by Wipro in the late '80s. Many public sector undertakings, banks and the Railways have been users of Unix based systems for decades now. Many companies in India have realised that it's a total waste of time, money and effort to invest in Microsoft, Oracle and Cisco equipment and their closed-source zero-innovation ideologies for their computing needs.

The Indian branch of the Free Software Foundation is located in Kerala, again because of the high literacy rates, and the forward-thinking, proud and practical people of Kerala. Even if Windows Vista is released free for all the students in Kerala, they would not be inclined to waste their time.

Except that they're not actually banning the use of Microsoft software, just encouraging public institutions not to use it. That's not anything like forcing private citizens to use one or other bit of software.

Kerala is ruled by an ELECTED communist government within an overall governmental framework that is not communist. Private enterprise is alive and well in Kerala. Kerala also has the highest literacy rate in India (95%) and a lot of technically skilled people.

The New York times seems to be trying to stir up "Fear, Anxiety and doubt". The government is not "Communist" but democratic socialist, like the UK's ruling party and much of the EU, Latin America and many other places.

In Kerala, they are replacing one western Operating System (illegal copies of Windows), with another western operating system (legal licences of Linux). After Microsoft went there and demanded lots of money for no source code and no local language support from their dialect, and Richard Stallman went there and offered full source code and a free system that had already been translated into their local dialect.

Why this should panic investors? Cola is after all very bad for you, why should Indians have to become clones of us fat, sugar-high westerners?

Kerala has done very well without help from the western elites and will carry on doing so. FUD or no FUD.

The UK's government is neither socialist nor particularly democratic. After selling out the Labour party, ditching Clause Four [wikipedia.org] and receiving votes from rather less than a quarter of the population, Tony Blair is basically carrying on with Thatcherism..... except that people let him get away with it, simply because he is not Thatcher.

Did I mention that he also licks G.W.Bush's arse?

The only reason the UK hasn't been booted out of the EU a long time ago is the hope that we might join the Euro. It would then be economically viable for the Euro, rather than the US dollar, to be used as the principal currency for trade in crude oil. However, despite the clear and obvious benefits to the majority of the population {lower prices, no more getting fleeced by bureaux de change when travelling abroad} the Murdoch-owned media {under the influence of the carpetbaggers who stand to lose most from the adoption of the Euro} has managed to hoodwink people into believing that using the same coin as our continental cousins would somehow compromise Britain's "sovereignty" despite not being able to provide an adequate definition of what sovereignty actually means.

Are you implying that Cuba, North Korea and Iraq was in some way "doing better than the United States" ? The countries you listed were some of the worst of in the world long before the US took any interrest in them.

And you've missed the point. It isn't just that they are elected, it is also that the overall framework is not communist, so even a government dominated by communists cannot impose a truly communist state. Private property and private enterprise exist in Kerala, which they would not in a communist system, and the state government does not control the economy the way it would in a communist system.

Even if the reason for the ban on Coke and Pepsi is hostility to large, multinational corporations, that doesn't make Kerala communist. There are lots of Greens, for example, who are certainly not communist, who are hostile to such corporations. There are also other possible reasons for the ban. One is that if they think that the levels of toxic chemicals in Coke and Pepsi products are too high, it makes sense to ban sales entirely, not just in schools. Even if adults aren't at risk (and they may think they are), kids drink soft drinks outside of school.

"Now can we please stop arguing this off topic shit? If you don't want to actually discuss something relevant don't bother replying."

Yes, focus on the idea instead of the politics.

However your idiotic troll started the thread and introduced coke, pepsi and political bias. Now you want to back out because you realize you know jack shit about politics, business or culture in Kerala. Fess-up Mr.Rumsfeld, you saw the word "communist" and freaked out.

Kerala banned it. They are anti-western business. They are communists.

So what? Who cares? If they're real communists then that's probably good (but hopelessly idealistic, like real capitalists). If they're just Stalinists then that's bad. But banning a couple of products because of a health scare doesn't seem particularly tyrannical to me.

It matters a lot. It matters because of the reasons why they banned it. It matters because the outside world sees the way they treat foreign investment, and treats them accordingly. It matters to me because as an Indian I don't see my country becoming more wealthy because of the anti-west ideals emanating it.

And banning microsoft was not a health scare. In fact, I don't think banning Coke was either (that is debatable).

Well, they didn't ban Microsoft, and if they did they'd only be making a prudent decision anyway. Microsoft has held back computing in the West for 20 years; why let it hold India back too? Plus, of course, Microsoft embody the anti-capitalist bogyman far better than some communist local government. Capitalism only works when government intervenes to prevent monopolies growing to the point where they can control the market. Once that point is reached capitalism breaks down, which is what all western companies want. The perfect situation for a western company is to have no competition and customers who have to pay whatever you tell them to. Enron in California is the ultimate example of the perfect western company from the point of view of the owners.

Microsoft would dearly like to be in the same situation as Enron was before it got busted; does your desire to sell your country to the West really go so far as to want that?

I think you have a very distorted view of exactly how business in the West works and, more importantly, how western businesses view your country. You are a market to be milked, nothing more. The companies involved will happily collude to screw you and your countrymen to the wall. If it means a few Bhopals or the total loss of control of the power generation system, or the sale of all your fresh water to factories resulting in famine in rual areas, then they care not a jot.

I know this because I live in the west and they have done these things here. Now most of them are illegal, so they are off to suck you dry before you get wise. A few million dollars in bribes to officials can save them billions off their bottom line, so they will do it. Once they own the government, you'll be praying for communists or anyone else to do something about it. Come to Britain and see what it's like to have a government totally controlled by big business. Fraud and corruption are rife while education, health, housing, and employment are collapsing around us and the electorate can do nothing about it because of the gerrymandering that keeps a party with a third of the vote in absolute power with a vast majority in parliament.

Or go to America, where the entire cabinet is made up of unelected oil company directors. Literally tens of thousands of people have died, and more die every day, because these represetatives of western business that you are so worried about upsetting are pursuing their business agendas using tanks and missiles. They are also supporting Pakistan's development of WMD which may one day be used on you. They are doing these things not because they hate you but because it makes them money. Lots of money. Nothing else matters.

As for you, to them you are just cheap labour. By undermining the employment market in their home countries, western businesses can use you to increase the gap in wages between the people who produce their products and the massive salaries they award themselves. As long as you depend on the West to build your economy instead of using your own resources you will never be anything more than a well-dressed slave.

India has natural resources, plenty of people, and a tradition of education and technical skill that a country like America can only dream of. What the hell do you need us for? Get yourself some self-respect and make your own software, your own computers, your own soft drinks; your own future.

Now explain why the democratic, free-market US not only bans marijuana (which has never been shown to be harmful or addictive), but even bans forms of hemp that do not contain [nytimes.com] the hallucinogenic substance (THC) in marijuana.

On the contrary, there have been a good many studies that have shown just that; the problem is that there have also been a lot of studies that have shown the opposite. About the best you can say is that the jury is still out on the matter.

And exactly why is being a communist bad?It is just another idea that tries to create a perfect world.

Aside from that it is not a good idea to ban any product. This will just lead faster to more idiots.

About being anti-western, in my point of view being anti-western is actually a good thing although I do live in a western country, but when I look at what the western world does to the non-western countries it seems to me we are way off track by trying to

A hundred years ago you could have been excused for speaking something so horrific on the grounds that the jury was still out. History has now rendered its verdict. All of the fad philosophies of the late 19th and early 20th century were fatally flawed. It wasn't just that there were implemented poorly, the wrong people were in charge, the revolution wasn't hijacked. Communism, Socialism, National Socialism, Fascism, all were similar far more than they diffe

Communisim is bad because it goes against human nature, and therefore is doomed to failure in the long run.

I strongly disagree. Communism works and has worked for as long as human history can record it. It is not against human nature for multiple people to cooperate for the benefit of all of them.

Therefore, in order to maintain a communist system, one must eventually use force.

This is also untrue. One example of communism is the nuclear family. Several people pool their resources and share a home, food, chores, etc. If one wants to leave, there is no reason they need to be forced to stay.

But that's typical of most, if not all, utopian philsophies. You set out to establish a utopia, an ideal system, a man-made paradise where all is good and evil is vanquished. But next thing you know, you find yourself enforcing that utopia at the point of a gun, or are refusing people to leave the utopia after they've become disenchanted.

You're making a fatal misjudgment. "Utopian philosophies" don't fail. Extremism fails. Every economy in the world is a blend of capitalism, communism, and socialism. Trying to eradicate any of these is an extreme and is what results in horrific failure, historically.

Fortunately, most utopias remain small (cults) so they harm only to the small number of people that were misfortunate enough to join them. Communists, on the other hand, tried to impose their utopia on vast numbers of people, to great harm.

There is nothing harmful about communism and nothing about it that implies it has to impose itself on large numbers of people. Communes have existed for thousands of years and are still chugging along just fine. The problem with communism, is that it becomes less and less effective the larger the communist cell grows. Moreover, since it necessarily concentrates decision making, it is more prone to authoritarian abuse than competitive systems.

The real discussion is the proper balance of communism, capitalism, and socialism within a given society. Communist cells compete in a capitalist economy against one another and everyone gives some to help those in need. In the US right now, we don't have socialized health care or drug treatment. We don't have progressive inheritance taxes. Our communist cells are mostly family units, although we also have some tightly knit communities in the form of communes, monasteries, and co-ops. The cell size is shrinking as more and more families become single parent affairs and as extended families spread out and break up.

If you look at the quality of living around the world, it suggests the US has too little socialism, and probably too small of communist cells for optimal efficiency.

Taking this discussion to the main topic, this article is simply another example of Communist government trying to impose a utopia on the citizens.

Ummm, how do you figure? These are people with communist leanings, but not working within a communist cell at all. They are a capitalist economy as much as the US is. Communism has absolutely no bearing on this decision at all. Also, they're not imposing anything. They suggested, but did not order the socialized education system to move away from a company that is a monopoly and which removes the advantages of capitalism, they wish to enjoy. To summarize, this was a bunch of people with communist leanings, directing the socialized part of their economy, to move towards more capitalism. A real capitalist would be overjoyed to hear it.

Actually, Coke and Pepsi showed that research to be flawed, and as I understand it linked it to the water. Kerala banned it because they are anti-corporation - especially from the West. Behavior like that is only keeping foreign investment out of India.

It is communist to be anti-corporation, especially the way Kerala has done it.

I know that DMCA-bashing and, lately, US-bashing are popular ways to get modded up, but this post is rather pathetic.

If "they like to tell people what they can and cannot do" is your definition of a fascist state, I can not think of any state that is not fascist. Developing rules by which the residents of a country all agree to live is one of the fundamental purposes of government.

I was trying to word the post along the lines of the top-level post to point out how ridiculous it is to say "Kerala is a communist state - they like to tell their citizens what products they can and cannot use".

No, it's not a "communist state". It's a state in India (with the same constitution and political system as the rest) whose democratically elected coalition government is led by a party called the "Communist Party of India (Marxist)". Look it up (say here [wikipedia.org]) if you like.
The ban on Coca-Cola and Pepsi came after an NGO reported dangerously high levels of pesticide [bbc.co.uk] in them, although it is possible that there were other [rediff.com] reasons [countercurrents.org].

No, the reason you are being modded down is probably that you don't know what a communist state is. What the rest of us mean is a state that operates under a communist political and economic system. That means state ownership of all property, state control of the economy, and dictatorship of the proletariat. That is very different from the situation in Kerala where at both the state and national level the overal economic and political system is non-communist. The fact that Kerala is controlled by a coaliti

But by your own logic the US is a democracy anytime the president is a democrat (or the senate if you prefer, or maybe the house). If Kerala is currently a communist state then the US was a democracy 10 years ago and the UK is current a "labourist" state, whatever that means.

The irony, in that particular case, was that the market was already sorting it out: per capita consumption of soft-drinks in India have been among the lowest in the world.

Now, it's a fair question to ask how all that near-ubiquitous cricket advertising (which, as many will tell you, is the real growth industry in India) will change, now that Pepsi and Coke are being hounded out, but something tells me that BCCI officials aren't about to lose their sleep over this.

Well, perhaps I've grown a bit out of touch; and I understand that Kerala is relatively well off compared to much of India with only 25% of the populace below the poverty level, relative to what is considered the poverty level in India, but I was unware that an excess of calories in the diet had suddenly become a systemic problem in India.

"Kerala is a communist state - they like to tell their citizens what products they can and cannot use"

Are you suggesting the drug war is over and the bong heads won, or did you forget about prohibition?

In true/. form I have not read TFA, but from the summary it sounds like they are doing what many of us would like to see ANY government do. Also from the summary they have not banned anything, so what is the problem besides the words "communist state"?

"Are you suggesting the drug war is over and the bong heads won, or did you forget about prohibition? "I am not a defender of the USA, so this argument is irrelvant."but from the summary it sounds like they are doing what many of us would like to see ANY government do. Also from the summary they have not banned anything, so what is the problem besides the words "communist state"?

Perhaps, but my main argument was against their reasons not their actions (which I also think are somewhat questionable). Recently

What gives MS the right to maintain market share and consequently leech money out of india.It makes absoloutely no sense for the indian government to use software sold by a foreign corporation when a local company can provide and support an open source based solution. Any profit that local company makes, will ultimately be taxed by the government, as will their staff, so a chunk of the money the government spends comes right back to them. Plus it helps keep jobs locally, and any improvements they make can also be used by other government departments without additional cost to them.It makes absoloutely no sense for the indian government to keep giving huge amounts of money to a foreign corporation, when there's a local alternative. Infact, not using the local alternative is pretty irresponsible and harmfull to the local economy.

Yes. Kerala particularly (and sadly) has a problem with over-education of the population compared to the number of skilled jobs. Their education system is exceptional, but often people can't find relevant employment afterwards.I met a fisherman on the Keralan coastline, fishing with the villagers using a technique 1000s of years old. He had a degree and masters in informatics, could develop in Java and others, and spoke four languages. OSS is an amazing solution here. The government can soak up some of

And isn't an allegedly democractic nation complaining about what another nation's population has democratically elected, kinda.... hypocritical? Or is it only 'real democracy' when people choose American style, braindead capitalism, even if the population has to be bound, gagged and drugged before they make the 'right' choice?

And isn't an allegedly democractic nation complaining about what another nation's population has democratically elected, kinda.... hypocritical?

What you're missing is, they're stupid and we're much smarter. In fact, everyone abroad is, I noticed, pathetically stupid. After scientific and military analysis, we found out this is due to lack of "smartness" in other countries, which results in truly utter stupidity.

However we're not egotistical and we've devised a plan to bring our smartness in other countries against their will (since they are too stupid to request it themselves, it's a side effect). As you can assess, it's not about hypocricy at all. It's all about generosity and caring.

If you understand the general principles, how difficult is it to pick up MS, or Apple products? I haven't used MS Office for decades but I could sit down and be productive with it in about 30 seconds flat. The same is true of an MS Office user sitting down in front of OpenOffice or AbiWord. Most software which performs a similar task actually tends to use similar concepts, look and work in a similar manner.

You do realise, don't you, that you just insulted the intelligence of everyone who knows more than one means to accomplish a given end? Absit omen someone should learn that the end is independent of the means. For crying out loud, they might even realise that that is the right place to stick an abstraction layer, not just where it looks pretty!

You seem to have a very narrow view -- certainly no broader than Microsoft's paid shills -- if you really think that

How much more support does someone using a Linux PC use than someone using a Windows one? I would suggest that the difference for the average office worker, the difference is zero, or less.

Why? A word processor is that, no more and no less. A web browser should just work. Email is email, whatever you are running. And so on...

I would suggest that people need less support once things are up and running. They need exactly the same training to get started. The technicians who set up or image the PCs in the first place will likely have an easier time too. Ubuntu, for example, is a LOT easier and faster to install than XP. It doesn't need hand-holding anti-virus software it is far better at network updates and is a lot more secure from the start.